SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16612, 11 December 1919, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. (Before the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout.) LAURENT v. M'GINTY. Fixing costs in the case of Laurent v. M’Giuty, in which judgment had been given for defendant. Ids Honour hold that plaintiff had been put to extra cost by the raising of grounds of defence which were not sustained. He disallowed costs for the second day of the hearing as the case would have been concluded on (ho first day if the defence had been confined to tho question of agreement to cancel tho contract on which it succeeded, and also disallowed the expenses of certain .unnecessary witnesses.

CLARIS v. CLEMENT. JUDGMENT ON COUNTER-CLAIM. Partial judgment was given in tho case of Claris and others v. Clement and others, claim for specific performance of contract and counter-claim for damages. His Honour said there should bo no trouble about the title in connection with tho transfer of the lease from plaintiffs to defendants, and therefore it remained for him to decide the question of costs and the counter-claim for short delivery of stock. Ho was of opinion that neither party had acted properly regarding delivery of tho slock. It was ihe duty of tho plaintiffs or their agent to have had the stock mustered for defendants to take delivery and not scattered over a bush farm, while defendants should have insisted upon examining the cattle before they were sold. His Honour came to the conclusion that two of tho cows and six of the heifers had not been dcliovered by plaintiff, and that defendant was entitled on tho counter-claim to bo allowed £2O for each cow and £o 12s 6d for each heifer, making a total of £73 15s. His Honour adjourned tho claim for specific performance and expressed a hope that it would he amicably and quickly settled. Ho would not deal with tho question of costs until ho saw how the action was settled. Mr. Gow (for defendants) gave an assurance that if the lessor’s consent to tho transfer was obtained there would ho no further delay in completing.

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION. POSITION OF SUB-TENANT. Robert C. Clemow and Bertha Jane Fairhall (Mr. C. PI. Croker, instructed by Mr. F. E. Wilson) proceeded against John Henry Cock (Mr. R. H. Quilliam) fa; - possession of land and building at Omata. The facts adduced for the plaintiffs were to the effect that Miss Fairhall, ono plaintiff, was the ownier in fee simple of an acre of land at Omata, which was leased some years ago to Clemow, the other plaintiff, by oral agreement with right of renewal (also oral). While in occupation ho subleased a small cottage and 10 acres of laud to defendant, without the knowledge or consent of Miss Fairhall. On, August 1 last Clemow, again _by oral arrangement, gave up possession and Miss Fairhall accepted it without knowledge that Cock was a sub-tenant. S'ao know - .someone was living on the property, but thought it was an employee of Clemow. About October 7 notice to quit, signed by Clemow', was sent to Cock, but ho had refused to give up possession. Evidence on these lines was .given by Frank E. Wilson, solicitor for Miss Fairhall.

Mr. Quilliam submitted that plaintiffs should jpo non-suited on the ground that Ciemow i as rot r ow entitled to terminate the tenancy oi' Cock, having sui<* rendered his rights in the property on giving up possession in August. He claimed that, as the lessee had surrendered his rights voluntarily, he had not prejudiced the rights of the sublessee and the latter alleged that he had a three year lease (terminating in August next) under an oral agreement with the lessee (Clemow). Defendant deposed that he first leased the place from Clemow in 1&13 tor a term and had afterwards secured renewals, the last being for a period of three years ending in 1020. At the time this agreement was made the rent was increased by 3s, making it 14s per week. He was a man with a family and was willing to go if he could get another house. , „ , Mr. Croker submitted that, if Cock was right, Clemow had granted a sublease to him for a longer period than he had a right to do under Ins lease. He contended that, in August, Clemow only gave up the land that was in ms own possession and afterwards, in order to rid himself entirely of responsibility lie was entitled to give Cock notice to quit. His Honour said he would look into the matter.